21–30 of 72 posts
actually if you think about it, women would actually have a leg up when it comes to getting funding etc. Since there are so few of them, they have a much higher chance of actually getting to talk about their idea in front of VCs who want to see what they have to offer.
Why does there being fewer of them increase their likelihood of getting an opportunity to pitch? Because they are a curiosity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may be true. However, I do know some very smart women who have gotten pregnant accidentally. It's claimed (by?) it takes an average of 7 years to exit your startup. That is a large chunk of time for women with a ticking biological clock. I do realise of course that it is possible to have kids in to your 40s, but most women choose not to do so.
That implies that women have a greater biological imperative to reproduce than men. I don't know that that's true. Honestly, I see my "grad school clock" as an equally big, if not bigger, problem than anyone's biological clock. When you do a startup, you have to choose your priorities -- the implication is that neither kids nor grad school are amongst them.
I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…
that's close - but not quite what I was taught. Basically, men aren't as important as women. If 99.99% of men died today, the human race could be back to it's normal population within a generation (a man could easily father a child a day for 30 years ~10,000 children). On the other hand, we'd have much more trouble if 99.9% of women died, since a women can only realistically have about 10 children in a lifetime. This…
Surely you are joking... Miscarriages, even a century ago, claimed so many women. You would be lucky to live past your third, much less your tenth!
Without some network to provided for her (either by her family, or the village, or her mate, all of which are strongly effected by status), the likelihood of surviving a pregnancy becomes much lower.
Women couldn't just flip a switch and get pregnant to satisfy a biological urge. Pregnancy represents both an enormous investment in time, effort, and energy, and a gamble on life. Status structure reflects this.
I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…
While that makes for a neatly packaged Darwinian theory, it's important to remember that genetic selection is not the only force that affects our decisions. Medicine, culture, technology, and many other factors affect, and even override, what our genes may steer us toward if they could "act in a vacuum." Not convinced? By the same theory, one would think that men in today's society would be highly encouraged to have…
---
Not convinced? By the same theory, one would think that men in today's society would be highly encouraged to have children with multiple partners -- at roughly age 18. Yet, we discourage both for no apparent genetic benefit. Rather, it's for a societal benefit.
As I note below, often societal benefit trumps genetic benefit, which remains true as long as there is a high genetic correlation between the people in that society.
This is sad, but from a biological perspective, it's oddly tautological. Men are organisms that run huge risks in hopes of huge payoffs, while women run smaller risks for more certain rewards. One could consider a male lion to be an entrepreneur, and a lioness to have a steady job. However, in nature both strategies are equally successful, while in the modern world being an entrepreneur is more effective. On the flip…
With the whole goddamn responsibility of keeping humanity alive on top of them undoubtedly there’s a genetic disposition for women to be more risk averse. That though probably does not matter as much because women have clearly been extremely competent in pretty much every other field now for decades.
So the problem has to lie in social conditioning. Cultural expectation and etiquette has always been the most powerful destroyer of human potential in both men and women, from the day they are born (and thus being most effective at it)
Heard this joke? Why do baby boys wear blue and baby girls wear pink?
Cos they don’t have a fucking choice!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This may be true. However, I do know some very smart women who have gotten pregnant accidentally. It's claimed (by?) it takes an average of 7 years to exit your startup. That is a large chunk of time for women with a ticking biological clock. I do realise of course that it is possible to have kids in to your 40s, but most women choose not to do so.
That implies that women have a greater biological imperative to reproduce than men. I don't know that that's true. Honestly, I see my "grad school clock" as an equally big, if not bigger, problem than anyone's biological clock. When you do a startup, you have to choose your priorities -- the implication is that neither kids nor grad school are amongst them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's close - but not quite what I was taught. Basically, men aren't as important as women. If 99.99% of men died today, the human race could be back to it's normal population within a generation (a man could easily father a child a day for 30 years ~10,000 children). On the other hand, we'd have much more trouble if 99.9% of women died, since a women can only realistically have about 10 children in a lifetime. This…
A women, on the other hand, can likely have 10 children whether or not she is successful Surely you are joking... Miscarriages, even a century ago, claimed so many women . You would be lucky to live past your third, much less your tenth! Without some network to provided for her (either by her family, or the village, or her mate, all of which are strongly effected by status), the likelihood of surviving a pregnancy be…
I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…
Unfortunately, your explanation does not go the whole way. Consider the evolution of biological genes: a) Men and women share mostly the same genes (the y chromosome is a desolate wasteland), and there are few (if any) known mechanisms by which gene merging is different for male and female humans. b) Dominant, decisive, intelligent, women are likely to share similar evolutionary advantages to men. Note that I leave h…
I'm not armed with sources, but I daresay that nature has given everything specialization, so much so that applying the same ideas to the sexes is not the slightest bit strange. More strongly said, there is nothing surprising when one sex exhibits traits much more ostensibly than another. While I am not referring to the superiority of a specific sex, specie, or trait, it actually seems more unnatural to claim equality on things like attitudes towards risk and attribute difference to culture.
Back to your arguments specifically. These come from a fuzzy memory, but they provide a complementary view.
a. Even a single genetic difference can lead to drastically different results. We are close enough to chimps. Men and women have different brains; different areas activate up when shown the same picture. It's not a stretch to say that risk evaluation is done differently as well.
b. I recall at least two matriarchial societies in which women called the shots. Nevertheless, the men were still the fighters, which is perhaps the most competitive, aggressive, and risky behavior possible. Women can be dominant, intelligent, and decisive, and still partake in less adrenaline-laden activities. There may be something else in the motivation.
a. I think this is a good and important point, and am not trying to underplay it, but this argument is usually the convenient one, and the hardest to make any systematic observation. Thought experiment: try comparing startup founder numbers of Japanese men to those of American women.
b. Again, true enough, but also: the sperm of a high-status males, whom are shown to produce more offspring, still hold good chance to yield daughters.
Does this poke a hole in your argument?